Go back to high school and retake reading comprehension and basic physics please. I know that is far too rude and confrontational, but it doesn't sound like you read my post at all, which is tiresome.

I stated myself that surface temperature has been consistently rising. I and anyone trusting the meteorology community agrees that even the current 'slowdown' is as you reference, a matter of warming but at a slower rate than previously and than expected.

I don't comprehend where you ever got the notion I believed or claimed otherwise? I pointed out that the rate of net energy/radiation coming into the planet is the more important and direct measure. The basic physics of the greenhouse effect is trapping incoming radiation so that more is coming in than going out. The resulting extra energy leads to warming. What I observed and you again reference yourself in your quote of the article is that the changes to that energy imbalance at t edge of space, is dominated by volcanic activity since the 60s. With the major increases we've contributed to CO2 contributions in that same time, that gives some hope things aren't as bleak as many fear mongers wish. With no notable trend in the energy imbalance in the whole Ceres results of the last decade and a half, we certainly seem less likely to be facing catastrophic sensitivity to CO2. The increases of a decade and a half being in essence undetectable in the core measure of changes to the energy imbalance.

The basic physics of climate change is that increasing levels of gases trap more energy from the sun, increasing the amount of energy in our atmosphere and climate system. We know by and large, most of the energy is stored in the oceans as water holds energy much better than gases in the air.

With such a simple observation, I'd like to make the observation that it seems too few of the IPCC guys pushing for policy stuff are paying any attention to the energy budget. Instead, we have the only basis scientifically being that the average surface temperature is warming, and CO2 levels are rising and we are the ones pushing them up. That's all well and good, and they are important observations. About 30 years ago though we started sending up satellites to measure incoming and outgoing radiation. The ERBS and CERES programs from NASA have given us direct measurements of trends in the overall energy balance at the edge of space. The most direct measurement of global warming that we can have. The summary from each program, has let us find a decade level average energy imbalance, and we've found it is in good or at least general agreement with energy levels measured via Ocean Heat Content observations.

Here's the important bit though. As the IPCC's most recent AR has observed, the satellite measurements show that for the duration of the CERES project, there has been NO TREND in the energy imbalance. The earlier ERBS data showed the same as well. Our satellite measurements have shown significant and very steady trends in energy balance cycling monthly, but the average over the years and decades we've measured is just a steady and consistent average neither shifting noticeably up or down. Meanwhile, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over that same time have climbed like nobody's business. All our models and expectation for X degrees of warming for so much CO2 kinda hinges pretty heavy on CO2 pushing up the energy imbalance. If it's not, and observations suggest that. We may not need to be so worried as some of the panic ridden crowd wants.

Before I get citation needed shoved down my throat, here's a peer reviewed journal article published in Geophysical Research Letters. It is comparing observed atmosphere energy imbalance to the CMIP5 model runs. It finds good agreement, but also makes the very notable observation that the energy imbalance trend is dominated by volcanic activity(ie NOT the CO2 levels that are higher than they've been in millenia). Full abstract:
Observational analyses of running 5 year ocean heat content trends (Ht) and net downward top of atmosphere radiation (N) are significantly correlated (r~0.6) from 1960 to 1999, but a spike in Ht in the early 2000s is likely spurious since it is inconsistent with estimates of N from both satellite observations and climate model simulations. Variations in N between 1960 and 2000 were dominated by volcanic eruptions and are well simulated by the ensemble mean of coupled models from the Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). We find an observation-based reduction in N of 0.31±0.21Wm2 between 1999 and 2005 that potentially contributed to the recent warming slowdown, but the relative roles of external forcing and internal variability remain unclear. While present-day anomalies of N in the CMIP5 ensemble mean and observations agree, this may be due to a cancelation of errors in outgoing longwave and absorbed solar radiation.

Thanks for agreeing and confirming the only facts I pointed out:
Ukraine willingly gave up it's nuclear arsenal.
Russia is now invading Ukraine.

I'd second the SA blame for 911, but even more directly responsible than them would have to be Pakistan.

The American support for the mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan times wasn't solely to Al Qaida chaps, but to anyone willing to fight the Russians, including Al Qaida and the Taliban and the Afghan Northern Alliance folks that were their enemies. It's not lying per se to claim that America supported people that would later become key players in the Taliban and Al Qaida, but it's certainly less than half of the truth.

Pakistan however had continued to support the Taliban right on through. Part of Pakistan's war planning against India was 'strategic depth' into Afghanistan where the friendly and allied Taliban forces gave room for them to move into and operate alongside. The Taliban being as largely uneducated and prone to fanatacism as they were made Al Qaida a moderate voice for Pakistan to work with the Taliban through as well. Pakistan's ISI(equivalent of the CIA) was deeply, deeply in bed with the Taliban and Al Qaida. When the towers went down, the American response was who could have or might have done this? The immediate response in tribal Pakistan was different and two fold. First, shock that Bin Laden actually went through with it and actually did it. The second, was when the Americans go to war with the Taliban, whose side will Pakistan take, and bets where 50/50.

Make no mistake, the Afghan war was 100% about Pakistan's response and ensuring that it and it's nuclear arsenal took sides against jihadists and severed it's buddy, buddy relationship with them. It was never stated outright publicly though, because that would be impolite and push Pakistan to refusing on principal, which it very nearly did anyways.

Indeed. And all Gadhafi had done was use his military to crush and murder peaceful protests, and when that turned ugly, promising to 'exterminate the cockroaches house by house'. Stopping him was certainly an unjustifiable failure of international relations.

Perhaps the most salient point was made in another thread. The Ukraine, as one of the only nations to ever willingly give up a nuclear arsenal, is in the process of being invaded. I'm not sure if you care about the distinction that in this case it is Russia doing the invading and not the evil America or her western allies.

So if you could travel back in time, you'd undo recent interventions. You would go back and change things so that today in your preferred reality, Afghanistan is still ruled by the Taliban with Bin Laden still living as their guest, Gadhafi still ruling Libya after completing the genocide he promised his opponents, and Saddam still ruling Iraq.

Well said and amen to that. American bad behaviour can't be looked at in a vacuum, you have to compare it to alternatives and look at the corresponding actions of other major players. Otherwise your just crying that the world is a bad and cruel place...

One strike?

45 years of activism?

Let's look at that activism, or more specifically 2 of the biggest issues they are 'working' on.

1. Anti-GMO activism and fear mongering. Despite the absence of any scientific basis for it and a mass of scientific evidence showing GMO crops are no more dangerous than their non-GMO counter parts Greenpeace is fighting hard to get them banned. A campaign of misinformation and fear mongering on the subject is their trademark. What's worse, in reality GMO crops have changed Ag practices to use much safer pesticides and in many cases fewer pesticides, but Greenpeace is steadfastly against it.

2.Anti-Nuclear power lobbying. They've been doing this since their founding, but what really compounds the matter is that Greenpeace of late has at the exact same time been lobbying hard for a reduction of CO2 emissions. I'm afraid a pretty basic litmus test to me is that if you oppose nuclear power AND demand a reduction in CO2 emissions sooner than later, you most likely don't know what your about. When putting forward activist campaigns on both fronts you are causing harm on both fronts by condemning one of the best existing solutions to a problem you purportedly care about. That just makes people willing to listen to both fronts turn around and stop caring when they follow both campaigns to their inevitable conclusions.

I don't much care how much you protest, night time is gonna be wanting for power if that's your install base. Either that, or somebody is gonna be spending a lot of money storing the solar energy generated during the day for use overnight. THAT cost is certainly excluded in current solar price listings.

Just checked and it is in a different chapter. The IPCC 5th assessment has the observed energy balance discussed in Chapter 2: Observations: Surface and Atmosphere. The summary is as follows:

Satellite records of top of the atmosphere radiation fluxes have
been substantially extended since AR4, and it is unlikely that
significant trends exist in global and tropical radiation budgets
since 2000.

Given the significant increase in measured anthropogenic GHGs over that same time frame and the estimated forcing(greenhouse effect), we should be a little surprised at this result. More importantly, we should be seriously expecting the energy imbalance to track more closely over time in the future and in the long term. If the non trend stretches into a second decade, I expect a whole lot of new research into that to dominate. Our modelling exercises will be rather irrelevant if the primary input(forcings/energy imbalance) stops matching with observations.

You'll find it at the top of chapter even in the bullet pointed summary/overview, with details later in the doc. Might be in a different chapter/pdf of the IPCC report, but it's based not on the models but from the CERES and other satellite top of atmosphere direct measurements of radiation in vs radiation out. If you go to the IPCC site and pull up the 5th assessment report it's in one of the chapters from the "Basic Science" report. The most important and real measure of our impact through CO2 emissions is going to show up most clearly here. As noted, temperature is gonna fluctuate a lot based on how much energy the oceans are absorbing/releasing but the radiation in and out imbalance is where the actual greenhouse effect is truly acting and taking place.

The first link is to an image of fig 11.9 from page 981 of the IPCC report in the second link. I thought I'd attributed as from the IPCC report prior but might've missed it. That's the page though for more info on the first link.

The last decade being warming slower than expected has had explanations, but the more important metric of global energy imbalance hasn't trended up/down that decade either and the oceans have little to do with that end.

I think I gave your post too much credit with my previous response. Your chunk here is decrying the state of the art climate models as severely as anyone I've heard...

If we are going to just entirely through out all the models and all of climate science we can claim whatever pleases us. Might as well include that we might be going into an ice age too. Then we can fret over what catastrophic glaciation we'll face if we don't maintain our CO2 emissions. Or we could, you know, stick with the scientific method and data...

So you're argument is in essence that because of our ignorance of the consequences of actions, we should obviously be taking the action you recommend? Go ahead and start your own cult then, but don't come crying to anyone when the scientific community rejects all your hocus pocus as being nothing more than your own personal whim and fancy.

"Even if this were true?", this is from the IPCC report, you know, the team that was awarded a noble prize for their work on climate change. And you are right, in climate change a decade should be viewed as a single data point. When it comes to assessing modern climate models, we have only that one data point. So it can also be viewed as 100% of the data points we have. It also means the instrumental record we compare our models to, have a grand total of 11-12 data points to compare to.

Overall, if the models are being assessed, there's an awfull lot of reason to be cautious about placing to high a confidence in something we are just starting out with and still have serious challenges comparing/testing our results from.